Also the San Jose Mercury News (a pretty mainstream outfit) came out against the war on the same day, comdemming NATO's policy of terrorizing the civilan population. Their editorial begins "President Clinton should be ashamed of the attacks on civilians" and ends "Our side began this war with a moral imperative. This week we lost it, somewhere in the skies over Belgrade." http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/edit/BOMBING.htm
Escalation is inevitable given the insane logic of war, and domestic resistance will grow as the war's intensity become disproportionate to the mainsteam's preception of the importance of the "problem to be solved" by the war. hmm, that sounds a bit too equation like but I think that is one way to look at what is going on here.
-- adam
NYT May 27
Have We Forgotten the Path to Peace?
By JIMMY CARTER
After the cold war, many expected that the world would enter an era
of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Those who live in
developed nations might think this is the case today, with the possible
exception of the war in Kosovo. But at the Carter Center we monitor all
serious conflicts in the world, and the reality is that the number of such
wars has increased dramatically.
One reason is that the United Nations was designed to deal with
international conflicts, and almost all the current ones are civil wars in
developing countries. This creates a peacemaking vacuum that is most
often filled by powerful nations that concentrate their attention on
conflicts that affect them, like those in Iraq, Bosnia and Serbia. While the
war in Kosovo rages and dominates the world's headlines, even more
destructive conflicts in developing nations are systematically ignored by
the United States and other powerful nations.
One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast to the
southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on peaceful territory. Fifty
thousand people have recently perished in the war between Eritrea and
Ethiopia, and almost two million have died during the 16-year conflict in
neighboring Sudan. That war has now spilled into northern Uganda,
whose troops have joined those from Rwanda to fight in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). The other Congo (Brazzaville) is
also ravaged by civil war, and all attempts to bring peace to Angola have
failed. Although formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans,
where white Europeans are involved, no such concerted efforts are being
made by leaders outside of Africa to resolve the disputes. This gives the
strong impression of racism.
Because of its dominant role in the United Nations Security Council and
NATO, the United States tends to orchestrate global peacemaking.
Unfortunately, many of these efforts are seriously flawed. We have
become increasingly inclined to sidestep the time-tested premises of
negotiation, which in most cases prevent deterioration of a bad situation
and at least offer the prospect of a bloodless solution. Abusive leaders
can best be induced by the simultaneous threat of consequences and the
promise of reward -- at least legitimacy within the international
community.
The approach the United States has taken recently has been to devise a
solution that best suits its own purposes, recruit at least tacit support in
whichever forum it can best influence, provide the dominant military
force, present an ultimatum to recalcitrant parties and then take punitive
action against the entire nation to force compliance.
The often tragic result of this final decision is that already oppressed
citizens suffer, while the oppressor may feel free of further consequences
if he perpetrates even worse crimes. Through control of the news media,
he is often made to seem heroic by defending his homeland against
foreign aggression and shifting blame for economic or political woes
away from himself.
Our general purposes are admirable: to enhance peace, freedom,
democracy, human rights and economic progress. But this flawed
approach is now causing unwarranted suffering and strengthening
unsavory regimes in several countries, including Sudan, Cuba, Iraq and --
the most troubling example -- Serbia.
There, the international community has admirable goals of protecting the
rights of Kosovars and ending the brutal policies of Slobodan Milosevic.
But the decision to attack the entire nation has been counterproductive,
and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and
excessively brutal. There is little indication of success after more than
25,000 sorties and 14,000 missiles and bombs, 4,000 of which were not
precision guided.
The expected few days of aerial attacks have now lengthened into
months, while more than a million Kosovars have been forced from their
homes, many never to return even under the best of circumstances. As
the American-led force has expanded targets to inhabited areas and
resorted to the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs, the result has been
damage to hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen ambassadors,
and the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians and an untold number of
conscripted troops.
Instead of focusing on Serbian military forces, missiles and bombs are
now concentrating on the destruction of bridges, railways, roads, electric
power, and fuel and fresh water supplies. Serbian citizens report that they
are living like cavemen, and their torment increases daily. Realizing that
we must save face but cannot change what has already been done,
NATO leaders now have three basic choices: to continue bombing ever
more targets until Yugoslavia (including Kosovo and Montenegro) is
almost totally destroyed, to rely on Russia to resolve our dilemma
through indirect diplomacy, or to accept American casualties by sending
military forces into Kosovo.
S o far, we are following the first, and worst, option -- and seem to be
moving toward including the third. Despite earlier denials by American
and other leaders, the recent decision to deploy a military force of
50,000 troops on the Kosovo border confirms that the use of ground
troops will be necessary to assure the return of expelled Albanians to
their homes.
How did we end up in this quagmire? We have ignored some basic
principles that should be applied to the prevention or resolution of all
conflicts:
Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient negotiation leads
to war, not peace.
Bypassing the Security Council weakens the United Nations and often
alienates permanent members who may be helpful in influencing warring
parties.
The exclusion of nongovernmental organizations from peacemaking
precludes vital "second track" opportunities for resolving disputes.
Ignoring serious conflicts in Africa and other underdeveloped regions
deprives these people of justice and equal rights.
Even the most severe military or economic punishment of oppressed
citizens is unlikely to force their oppressors to yield to American
demands.
The United States' insistence on the use of cluster bombs, designed to kill
or maim humans, is condemned almost universally and brings discredit on
our nation (as does our refusal to support a ban on land mines).
Even for the world's only superpower, the ends don't always justify the
means.
>Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 20:57:29 +0100
>From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
>Subject: Carter's criticism of NATO bombing
>
>
>No doubt US citizens have more direct insights into Jimmy Carter's
>strengths and weaknesses, mainly his weaknesses. From where I stood he
>seemed to have a naive belief in his own honesty that risked trying to
>place him above the reality of politics.
>
>
>However this criticism of the war below, although it will certainly not
>suit all list members, seems to me significant for the future. Carter has
>taken the role of an expert in peace politics. His criticisms have echoes
>with those of Paul Rogers, professor at Bradford university's school of
>peace studies quoted in the Guardian article forwarded by Doug on shift in
>bombing strategy and me in the contribution on class structure in the Balkans.
>
>
>
>NATO cannot be turned round now, although pressure can mount for a
>compromise peace sooner rather than later. Milosevic will accept some NATO
>troops on Kosovo soil.
>
>
>The world will see they have made a desert and called it peace.
>
>
>At that point what matters is how the NATO action is criticised, because it
>will be, very vocally. Think of all the journalists treading over the
>ground having to say something. This war has not been a push over for
>NATO. The nature of the criticism will affect the extent to which the US
>together with its most loyal ally (there is little dispute about who that
>is) is constrained in its role as hegemon of the world.
>
>
>Out of this process, and much struggle, will come a better understanding of
>international law, which will limit the self-appointed hard men till we get
>to some sort of world governance that armed force can only be used
>internationally according to agreed procedures.
>
>
>In this ideological and political battle, contributions from quarters as
>apparently insignificant as a department of peace studies in Bradford and a
>peace unit run by a rather naive former US president, will actually shape
>the terms of debate.
>
>
>It is not so silly as it seems. And what is written here, it is not
>incompatible with the principle of Clausewitz embraced by marxists, that
>war is the continuation of politics by other means, and politics is the
>continuation of war by other means. Realistic peace studies argue merely
>that the political phase should at least be extended longer before resort
>to war. And then should not be forgotten.
>
>
>
>Note in this summary from Carter his specific areas of criticism, including
>about the stopping of the negotiations before the third week in March, and
>about cluster bombs, and targetting roads, bridges and water supplies. Yes
>it is still an imperialist analysis because it leaves a lot of scope for
>intervention, and actually promotes a ground force, but this adds to a list
>of major strategic errors by NATO and will get debated in the aftermath.
>
>
>[I see also that Gunder Frank has posted an article by Carter of the same
>date, on his web site.]
>
>
>
> bombing 'a fruitless effort'
>
>
> May 28, 1999
> Web posted at: 7:45 a.m. EDT (1145 GMT)
>
>
> PLAINS, Georgia (CNN) -- Former U.S. President
> Jimmy Carter said Thursday that NATO's
> bombardments of Yugoslavia have failed to achieve
> the alliance's stated goals, and have unleashed
> "horrible destruction" on Serb civilians.
>
>
> "I just hate to see us continue to destroy the lives of
> totally innocent civilians in Serbia in a fruitless effort,"
> he said on CNN's "Larry King Live." He called the
> air campaign "well-intentioned but
> counterproductive."
>
>
> In a harsh assessment of NATO, Carter said the
> alliance should have begun preparing for a ground
> invasion of Kosovo immediately after Operation
> Allied Force began "to make sure that (Yugoslav
> President Slobodan Milosevic) knew we meant
> business."
>
>
> Carter: Ground troops better than bombing
>
>
> Carter said sending ground troops into Kosovo
> would be "a better option" than the bombing he
> blames for hurting the people of Serbia but not
> Milosevic. He said he became alarmed when the
> bombing shifted from military targets to roads,
> bridges, and water supplies.
>
>
> "The endgame seems to be a decision by NATO to
> continue this destruction of Yugoslavian civilian life,"
> he said on CNN. "We can destroy Yugoslavia by
> continued bombing, but I'm not sure we'll defeat
> Milosevic."
>
>
> The former president, who has become well-known
> as a peace negotiator since leaving office in 1980,
> said he thought NATO could have done more to try
> to reach a peaceful resolution before the conflict
> began, and that negotiations should never have been
> abandoned.
>
>
> White House 'respectfully disagrees'
>
>
> In response to Carter's comments, State Department
> spokesman James Rubin said "President Carter's
> suggestion that we should have kept on negotiating
> with President Milosevic ... is simply incorrect."
>
>
> White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said
> Carter was a leader with "real stature ... both at
> home and abroad. But on this case we just
> respectfully disagree with him."
>
>
> Carter said he wrote to President Clinton a few
> weeks ago, urging him not to use cluster bombs -- a
> weapon that Carter said is "only used to kill human
> beings." He said he has not received a response from
> the president.
>
>
> The former president is chairman of the nonprofit
> Carter Center in Atlanta, which monitors conflicts
> around the world. In an op-ed piece in Thursday's
> New York Times, Carter lamented the willingness of
> leaders to give up on peaceful resolutions.
>
>
> "We have become increasingly inclined to sidestep
> the time- tested premises of negotiation, which in
> most cases prevent deterioration of a bad situation,
> and at least offer the prospect of a bloodless
> solution," Carter wrote.
>
>
> His comments came as NATO granted Supreme
> NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark authority to
> hit a broader range of targets in Yugoslavia.
>
>
> The Associated Press contributed to this report.